19 Jul
2016
19 Jul
'16
10:31 p.m.
apparently at the meeting last week, Johnny was banned for Safe-Space
reasons, but nobody informed him about this.
Earlier tonight, he asked if I would be at sudoroom tonight and i said
yes, and so he brought his project to work on, but he was stopped at the
door by someone who knew about the ban. He asked for me and I spent the
next hour trying to sort through the mediation process and the
complexities of this particular situation.
In the future, when people are banned at a meeting it's important that
someone makes an effort to contact someone who is being banned to let them
know, and to inform them of how to participate in the mediation process.
To do otherwise discredits our important conflict resolution process and
disregards the basic rights of the accused. In this case Johnny can be
easily reached by email, and is included in this message.
Johnny expressed a desire to participate in mediation as soon as possible,
since he is banned from the space until its conclusion. He is also
dealing with eviction from his home right now so this is frustrating for
him, especially since he only found out about it after arriving at Omni to
work on a project.
is anyone stepping up to be a conflict steward and/or neutral mediator?
thanks
-jake
19 Jul
19 Jul
11:01 p.m.
Jake,
Johnny has been harassing me. He broke into my room last month and then
assaulted me later the same day. I've blocked his ability to communicate
with me. I've also had a temp restraining order granted against him.
I wondered if I should email the listserv, but felt afraid. I did not want
to deal with this being so public, so soon. I wanted to focus on other
projects that made me feel strong again instead. I didn't realize that was
expected.
No one deserves get "kicked out [evicted]" over someone else's "sexual
tension." No one deserves to be regularly called a "slut, bitch, rutt
bitch, ho, whore, and tease." No one deserves to be violently touched in
any way when they do not consent to it.
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016, 10:31 PM Jake <jake(a)spaz.org> wrote:
apparently at the meeting last week, Johnny was banned
for Safe-Space
reasons, but nobody informed him about this.
Earlier tonight, he asked if I would be at sudoroom tonight and i said
yes, and so he brought his project to work on, but he was stopped at the
door by someone who knew about the ban. He asked for me and I spent the
next hour trying to sort through the mediation process and the
complexities of this particular situation.
In the future, when people are banned at a meeting it's important that
someone makes an effort to contact someone who is being banned to let them
know, and to inform them of how to participate in the mediation process.
To do otherwise discredits our important conflict resolution process and
disregards the basic rights of the accused. In this case Johnny can be
easily reached by email, and is included in this message.
Johnny expressed a desire to participate in mediation as soon as possible,
since he is banned from the space until its conclusion. He is also
dealing with eviction from his home right now so this is frustrating for
him, especially since he only found out about it after arriving at Omni to
work on a project.
is anyone stepping up to be a conflict steward and/or neutral mediator?
thanks
-jake
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/sudo-discuss
11:03 p.m.
Well, now it looks like he's been notified.
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016, 11:01 PM Lesley Bell <zvezdalune(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Jake,
Johnny has been harassing me. He broke into my room last month and then
assaulted me later the same day. I've blocked his ability to communicate
with me. I've also had a temp restraining order granted against him.
I wondered if I should email the listserv, but felt afraid. I did not want
to deal with this being so public, so soon. I wanted to focus on other
projects that made me feel strong again instead. I didn't realize that was
expected.
No one deserves get "kicked out [evicted]" over someone else's
"sexual
tension." No one deserves to be regularly called a "slut, bitch, rutt
bitch, ho, whore, and tease." No one deserves to be violently touched in
any way when they do not consent to it.
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016, 10:31 PM Jake <jake(a)spaz.org> wrote:
apparently at the meeting last week, Johnny was
banned for Safe-Space
reasons, but nobody informed him about this.
Earlier tonight, he asked if I would be at sudoroom tonight and i said
yes, and so he brought his project to work on, but he was stopped at the
door by someone who knew about the ban. He asked for me and I spent the
next hour trying to sort through the mediation process and the
complexities of this particular situation.
In the future, when people are banned at a meeting it's important that
someone makes an effort to contact someone who is being banned to let them
know, and to inform them of how to participate in the mediation process.
To do otherwise discredits our important conflict resolution process and
disregards the basic rights of the accused. In this case Johnny can be
easily reached by email, and is included in this message.
Johnny expressed a desire to participate in mediation as soon as possible,
since he is banned from the space until its conclusion. He is also
dealing with eviction from his home right now so this is frustrating for
him, especially since he only found out about it after arriving at Omni to
work on a project.
is anyone stepping up to be a conflict steward and/or neutral mediator?
thanks
-jake
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/sudo-discuss
11:05 p.m.
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 10:31 PM, Jake <jake(a)spaz.org> wrote:
To do otherwise discredits our important conflict
resolution process and
disregards the basic rights of the accused.
Reminder: This is not a trial and we have no concept of "rights of the
accused". It is bad that Johnny was not told that he was banned. The
conflict resolution process is only available if a willing mediator and
conflict steward is available and is only likely to resolve the conflict if
both parties are willing to engage in mediation.
Johnny should be aware that he is also banned from Noisebridge per our
cross-safe-space-ban policy.
The safe spaces mailing list has been notified.
--
marc/juul
20 Jul
20 Jul
midnight
I object that sub-section 3.2
<https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association/Ban#Section_3.2_Conflict_Resolution>
Conflict
Resolution has not been followed in the least.
If it had been followed, then there would have been a facilitator
chosen *before
the meeting where a decision is made about my access*. This is plainly
indicated by this graphic on the wiki
<https://sudoroom.org/wiki/File:SudoRoom.png> and the text of that section.
Had this been followed, I would have been notified of conflict before
judgement, and I would not have been subjected to treatment I received
tonight by the law abiding members of sudoroom. I should have been
notified by the facilitator as to the fact that I was involved in a
conflict before judgement. That did not happen.
As stated in the same section 3.2.1 of sudo's own articles, conflict
resolution should proceed in "the spirit of a collaborative environment"
(ibid), and that the conflict, whatever it is, should be sought to a
*restorative* and not *retributive* end (sub-section 3.2.1).
Furthermore, my presumed innocence (3.2.1) and respect for privacy and
dignity (3.2.1) has been grossly violated by whatever process was followed
last week at the sudo meeting, not to mention previous gossip that
precipitated call to action and judgement without process.
A vote for consent is not process.
In short, the entire process was hijacked by an accusation and nobody in
the system did anything to see that due process was served. The same
process yall have worked so hard to codify to maintain a happy space. Only
now that I have been "served" does anybody point to the code of laws and
say what must follow.
In fact that same code does claim that I have rights within this supposed
system, if I can even be said to be allowed to suppose section 3.2 is
followed. Contrast this to a previous email in this thread stating I have
"no rights". Well, do I, or do I not?
Sub-section 3.2.1 states I have "right to an appeal and a fair process";
clearly a fair process has not been followed, and it's a "right"...
if people are to take this process seriously, then this "case" needs to be
tossed on account of "mistrial".
I'm perfectly willing to undergo a process if it attempts to live up to the
code of conflict resolution.
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 11:05 PM, Marc Juul <juul(a)labitat.dk> wrote:
On Tue, Jul 19, 2016 at 10:31 PM, Jake <jake(a)spaz.org> wrote:
To do otherwise discredits our important conflict
resolution process and
disregards the basic rights of the accused.
Reminder: This is not a trial and we have no concept of "rights of the
accused". It is bad that Johnny was not told that he was banned. The
conflict resolution process is only available if a willing mediator and
conflict steward is available and is only likely to resolve the conflict if
both parties are willing to engage in mediation.
Johnny should be aware that he is also banned from Noisebridge per our
cross-safe-space-ban policy.
The safe spaces mailing list has been notified.
--
marc/juul
_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
https://sudoroom.org/lists/listinfo/sudo-discuss
12:36 a.m.
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:00 AM, Johnny <mostmodernist(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I object that sub-section 3.2
<https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association/Ban#Section_3.2_Conflict_Resolution>
Conflict
Resolution has not been followed in the least.
If it had been followed, then there would have been a facilitator chosen *before
the meeting where a decision is made about my access*. This is plainly
indicated by this graphic on the wiki
<https://sudoroom.org/wiki/File:SudoRoom.png> and the text of that
section.
Had this been followed, I would have been notified of conflict before
judgement, and I would not have been subjected to treatment I received
tonight by the law abiding members of sudoroom. I should have been
notified by the facilitator as to the fact that I was involved in a
conflict before judgement. That did not happen.
Any member of any Omni collective can invoke an instant temporary safe
space ban and then subsequent mediation and/or meetings can decide if the
ban should be lifted or become permanent:
https://omnicommons.org/wiki/Safer_Space_Policy#4..E2.80.8E_.E2.80.8FConseq…
Yes you should have been informed that the safer space policy had been
invoked. That was a mistake. If any volunteers are available to act as
conflict steward and mediator then they will contact you. Note that in sudo
room articles are our guidelines and consensus can overrule any existing
rules including invoking/revoking bans. It looks to me like there has been
no meeting with enough members for quorum since this happened (can someone
verify or correct this if they attended recent meetings?). If this is
correct then you are temporarily banned based on the safer spaces policy
until mediation can conclude or a decision is made by a quorum of minimum
10 sudo room members. If there has been no consensus decision with quorum
then you are not banned from Noisebridge. I apologize for that statement (I
was not at that meeting and may have misinterpreted the wiki notes).
--
marc/juul
12:43 a.m.
Marc,
No quorum you say? Sub-Section 3.2.2 "Maintaining Safe Space During
Conflict Resolution" states that my ban would have had to been ratified
online without quorum.
Sub-Section 3.2.2 Maintaining Safe Space During Conflict Resolution
In the event that a conflict stems from one or more members being
threatened by another member of sudo room or a member of the wider
community, a temporary ban may be placed that person until the conflict has
been resolved. *Consensus in this case may be obtained at any sudo room
meeting and must be ratified online over a period of 24 hours in the event
quorum is not met at the meeting*. Should the person being banned fail to
participate constructively in the conflict resolution process as determined
by the membership, the ban shall become permanent.
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:36 AM, Marc Juul <juul(a)labitat.dk> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:00 AM, Johnny <mostmodernist(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I object that sub-section 3.2
<https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association/Ban#Section_3.2_Conflict_Resolution>
Conflict
Resolution has not been followed in the least.
If it had been followed, then there would have been a facilitator chosen *before
the meeting where a decision is made about my access*. This is plainly
indicated by this graphic on the wiki
<https://sudoroom.org/wiki/File:SudoRoom.png> and the text of that
section.
Had this been followed, I would have been notified of conflict before
judgement, and I would not have been subjected to treatment I received
tonight by the law abiding members of sudoroom. I should have been
notified by the facilitator as to the fact that I was involved in a
conflict before judgement. That did not happen.
Any member of any Omni collective can invoke an instant temporary safe
space ban and then subsequent mediation and/or meetings can decide if the
ban should be lifted or become permanent:
https://omnicommons.org/wiki/Safer_Space_Policy#4..E2.80.8E_.E2.80.8FConseq…
Yes you should have been informed that the safer space policy had been
invoked. That was a mistake. If any volunteers are available to act as
conflict steward and mediator then they will contact you. Note that in sudo
room articles are our guidelines and consensus can overrule any existing
rules including invoking/revoking bans. It looks to me like there has been
no meeting with enough members for quorum since this happened (can someone
verify or correct this if they attended recent meetings?). If this is
correct then you are temporarily banned based on the safer spaces policy
until mediation can conclude or a decision is made by a quorum of minimum
10 sudo room members. If there has been no consensus decision with quorum
then you are not banned from Noisebridge. I apologize for that statement (I
was not at that meeting and may have misinterpreted the wiki notes).
--
marc/juul
12:46 a.m.
#swish
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:43 AM, Johnny <mostmodernist(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Marc,
No quorum you say? Sub-Section 3.2.2 "Maintaining Safe Space During
Conflict Resolution" states that my ban would have had to been ratified
online without quorum.
Sub-Section 3.2.2 Maintaining Safe Space During Conflict Resolution
In the event that a conflict stems from one or more members being
threatened by another member of sudo room or a member of the wider
community, a temporary ban may be placed that person until the conflict has
been resolved. *Consensus in this case may be obtained at any sudo room
meeting and must be ratified online over a period of 24 hours in the event
quorum is not met at the meeting*. Should the person being banned fail
to participate constructively in the conflict resolution process as
determined by the membership, the ban shall become permanent.
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:36 AM, Marc Juul <juul(a)labitat.dk> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:00 AM, Johnny <mostmodernist(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I object that sub-section 3.2
<https://sudoroom.org/wiki/Articles_of_Association/Ban#Section_3.2_Conflict_Resolution>
Conflict
Resolution has not been followed in the least.
If it had been followed, then there would have been a facilitator chosen *before
the meeting where a decision is made about my access*. This is plainly
indicated by this graphic on the wiki
<https://sudoroom.org/wiki/File:SudoRoom.png> and the text of that
section.
Had this been followed, I would have been notified of conflict before
judgement, and I would not have been subjected to treatment I received
tonight by the law abiding members of sudoroom. I should have been
notified by the facilitator as to the fact that I was involved in a
conflict before judgement. That did not happen.
Any member of any Omni collective can invoke an instant temporary safe
space ban and then subsequent mediation and/or meetings can decide if the
ban should be lifted or become permanent:
https://omnicommons.org/wiki/Safer_Space_Policy#4..E2.80.8E_.E2.80.8FConseq…
Yes you should have been informed that the safer space policy had been
invoked. That was a mistake. If any volunteers are available to act as
conflict steward and mediator then they will contact you. Note that in sudo
room articles are our guidelines and consensus can overrule any existing
rules including invoking/revoking bans. It looks to me like there has been
no meeting with enough members for quorum since this happened (can someone
verify or correct this if they attended recent meetings?). If this is
correct then you are temporarily banned based on the safer spaces policy
until mediation can conclude or a decision is made by a quorum of minimum
10 sudo room members. If there has been no consensus decision with quorum
then you are not banned from Noisebridge. I apologize for that statement (I
was not at that meeting and may have misinterpreted the wiki notes).
--
marc/juul
12:53 a.m.
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:43 AM, Johnny <mostmodernist(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Marc,
No quorum you say? Sub-Section 3.2.2 "Maintaining Safe Space During
Conflict Resolution" states that my ban would have had to been ratified
online without quorum.
The sudo room space, being part of Omni, is also subject to all Omni rules,
including the Omni safer space policy which I linked previously.
--
marc/juul
2:15 a.m.
that link says if "someone's safety is at risk, a temporary ban may be
placed". it says nothing about how, and obviously is meant to deal with
clear present safety issues, not gossip and accusations.
abusing that vague apparatus of the super-system to ban people on mere
claims is totally fascist and supremacist behavior.
defending it is also fascist.
calling out for the record that Marc, Matt, Cere, Sigma, Jeremy are
fascists for consent to abuse system and unjustly override process without
sudo quorum; ya'll better not step on any cracks!
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:53 AM, Marc Juul <juul(a)labitat.dk> wrote:
On Wed, Jul 20, 2016 at 12:43 AM, Johnny <mostmodernist(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Marc,
No quorum you say? Sub-Section 3.2.2 "Maintaining Safe Space During
Conflict Resolution" states that my ban would have had to been ratified
online without quorum.
The sudo room space, being part of Omni, is also subject to all Omni
rules, including the Omni safer space policy which I linked previously.
--
marc/juul
3076
days inactive
3076
days old
9 comments
4 participants
participants (4)
-
Jake -
Johnny -
Lesley Bell -
Marc Juul